Email to Awesome Journalist Dude

0

Hi, [Awesome Journalist Dude].  Fan here.  There’s something I hope you will look into, because it helps explain a lot of false accusations and why sex assault is (supposedly) so underreported: What feminists actually mean when they talk about sexual assault.

A good place to start would be with ‘sexual violence’.  It’s a catch-all term feminists employ because it allows them to make a lot of false equivocations.

Sexual violence can entail anything from a “verbal assault” (which includes catcalling) or sexual harassment (includes unwelcome flirtation) to rape — which isn’t necessary ‘rape’ in any conventional sense.  Rather, ‘rape’ can refer to any sex act that fails to meet the feminist criteria for consent.

You’re probably aware of the term ‘affirmative consent’, but did you know that feminist ideology permits a woman’s ‘yes’ to be nullified AFTER the fact if she decides she didn’t really mean it?

Consent can also be revoked if the sex didn’t go according to her expectations, or if she suffers from any mental illness (e.g., bipolar disorder) and later concludes it had affected her judgement.

I was involved with radical feminism in my late teens, and nearly every girl I associated with had “attacker” stories to tell. And these she-roes were eager to tell everyone BUT the cops, complaining our laws simply weren’t strong enough to prosecute their “attackers”.  In that much, they were correct.

Advertisements

The Silver Lining

0

If there is any silver lining to be found in what’s occurred over these past few weeks, it’s that so many men have been able to come out and tell their stories — of sexual abuse, of false accusations, or both.

I think we’ve awoken something big.  People are finally starting to realize that men are on the fast track to becoming second-class citizens, and that is definitely not okay.

It’s up to us to make sure people don’t slip back into their complacency once the Kavanaugh thing blows over.  I have a young son, and I don’t want him growing up to be denied opportunities or victimized on account of his gender.

More Feminist Doxxing

0

I posted this on Facebook last night, and I tagged my son’s paternal grandmother because she is full of feminist spite.  She has been especially brutal on Kavanaugh.

So apparently feminists at the University of Washington created a site for women to anonymously doxx guys.

The police are refusing to do anything about it, but are instead encouraging men to drink less.

Who knows, guys? Maybe someday one of YOU could end up on a list just like this.

Feminism teaches us that unless a female gives affirmative consent while in a state of perfect sobriety, it’s “rape”.

(Affirmative consent = verbal affirmation of ‘yes’.)

And you know what, boys and girls? Feminism has taught me that I have NEVER ONCE engaged in consensual sex.

Not ever. 🤔

Uh-oh. 😉

Some brave anon crunched the numbers:

FACEBOOK: Due Process

0

Response to friend:

You obviously haven’t been spending much time on social media — good for you.  The nut jobs are indeed demanding he be criminally investigated, and they’re being fueled by all sorts of re-shares claiming that it’s possible.

I’m a little stunned by your remark about due process — of course there is a need!  The “due process” being referred to is the presumption of innocence and the recognition that guilt must be based on evidence alone.

It means he has a right to confront these accusations, and to do so publicly without being told: “Shut up, you’re not allowed to speak!”

It means not forcing the man to “bear witness” against himself, the way the Left is trying to present his anger and tears as evidence that he is mentally unhinged.

It means not convicting a man on the basis of an accusation, when not a single shred of evidence has been presented.

This is absolutely about due process.  It a sense, that is the ONLY thing this is about.  The Constitution isn’t simply a piece of paper — it represents a set of values one would hope the vast majority of us still believe in, even if we can’t always agree on how they should be applied.

This is essentially the same battle going on right now over free speech, only framed in a different light.

Some people think the free exchange of ideas is a good thing, regardless of the merit of the particular ideas being exchanged.  Others believe there should be limits placed upon what is considered acceptable speech, but that such limitations should not come from the government.  And others do not believe in free speech at all.

FACEBOOK: How Things Stand

0

The FBI doesn’t have the authority to investigate this as a criminal affair.  The most they could have done (and are doing now) is reopen Brett’s background check (yes, we are now on a first-name basis because I’m tired of typing his last name).

Montgomery County police have no reason to investigate him, because despite the crap you may have seen floating around, the statute of limitations has long since expired.

Senate Republicans don’t have the authority to call for the FBI to reopen his background check; the only one who does is Trump, and he has repeatedly pointed out that Brett’s already been through half a dozen background checks and emerged squeaky-clean.

Personally, I would‘ve liked to have seen Brett offer to take a polygraph.  (And for all we know, he may have made such a request.)  But that also would’ve been Trump’s call to make.  Precedent demands only that he select someone qualified and vetted.  The Constitution demands even less.

But moving on to more interesting matters: Christine Ford.  The scrub job they did on her is astounding.  This woman no longer existed by the time she took the stand, apart from three old sunglasses pics, two black and white photos from when she was a minor, and the “I Believe Christine” brand — which has made her into a millionaire.

Her house, her car — everything was transferred over to the name of an associate prior to her own name being “leaked”.  She’s a ghost, man.

They did such a good job of erasing her past that there is no record of her ever having published a SINGLE research paper — despite being a RESEARCH psychologist — or having taught at either of the two universities at which she is said to have taught.

Are you ready for the kicker?  It appears they may have accidentally erased any and all record of her ever having been licensed to practice clinical psychology.  (Not that she’ll need another day job after this.)

Or else she committed perjury when she testified to being a licensed psychologist, and has been defrauding both universities all along.  Which is entirely plausible, seeing how she lied about when she had her house remodeled — 2008, rather than 2012, which is significant because the two front doors serve as the time stamp by which she’s claiming to have first identified Brett as her groper.

Her testimony’s falling apart (like, whoa), she’s being publicly shredded by her former classmates, and her family wants nothing to do with any of it.  But: #BelieveWomen. 🙄